trailing9 @ trailing9 @lemmy.ml

Посты

0

Комментарии

430

Joined

2 yr. ago

Does it have to be exclusive? Society right now can own means of production. Cooperatives, joined-stock cooperations or foundations could be used to hold ownership and the fruits of labor could be shared.

If the majority is not willing to organize labor right now, who could take over the role of billionaires without abusing their position of power?

Engineers, scientists and workers need an environment that allows them to innovate. How can we create such an environment without billionaires? Somebody mentioned kickstarter. What is missing that small investors make billionaires irrelevant?

Let's imagine that this is not a joke. What do you need to get going besides the money?

If you had free counter-propaganda resources, how would you structure a socialist alternative and what would you tell the population?

Can we as a society organize and innovate without billionaires? Even China changed their economy to make them possible.

Right now, writers are on strike. Hollywood workers could invest their time, make movies, and get paid afterwards. But instead, it takes people with money to do the funding.

How should big sums of money be managed? Bureaucrats work to a certain extend but hardly innovate. Which structure could ask a million people to invest a thousand dollars each and offer ethical profits?

Redefine creepy as 'surpressing emotions'. When you surpress the awareness of surpressing emotions, then you surpress even more, so you appear to be more creepy.

That depends on you. The ones who create the future decide who will be able to eat.

The funny part is that the free humans already take all the resources and create all the scarcity. Why should that change when AI allows people to be more free? AI won't solve any social problems.

AI will make immense progress and all jobs that require a computer will be handed over to AI and robots. There will be hardly any middle managers left. People will do manual or personal stuff that robots cannot do.

Depending on who owns the AI, the distribution of wealth decides which jobs are available. I would bet on a small group of people who are going to decide what humanity will do.

The problem is that AI requires energy. At one point, the decision has to be made whether energy is used for bricks or bytes. Bytes will be prefered so most people will live in tiny rooms.

Since there is not much work to be done, and energy is expensive, people will spent most of their time doing something energy-efficient. Cities will be built for walking distances.

If the capitalists expanded their workforce to Africa, South America and Asia, and the middle class was temporary happy with consuming slightly increased wages instead of seeding competition in those countries, then they hadn't cared about markets.

The middle class always has the breathing room down to consuming as little as the poor. If they don't use it to control markets, how are they going to maintain a socialist or communist system?

Does the third person argue that it is easy or does the third person only argue that it is easier than the alternatives? How easy would it be to run a revolution or just to establish a socialist party?

What is the third person missing about the reserve army of labor? To me, it seems that reducing the reserve army of labor is their main argument.

What the third person doesn't mention is that there is a tendency to spend all possible income. The housing market shows that most people use reduced interest rates to increase their offer to outcompete somebody instead of sticking to their limits.

Are skilled workers willing to share their increased income with the poor? San Francisco has huge social problems even though many workers have a huge income.

Leftist - “But if there is a labor market, won’t that make labor cheaper?”

A third person - "Not necessarily. If the demand for labor is bigger than the supply then markets make labor more expensive.

Leftist - " How is that possible? "

A third person - " There are various ways. Workers could start more cooperatives or invest their savings in new companies"

Leftist - "But why should I care about markets when it is easier to change the political system?"

A third person - "Is it easier?"